Sunday, October 18, 2009

Proposal: Maximum effect

Fails 7-7 on timeout (-2 to JeffSheets)—mischievous admin arth

Adminned at 20 Oct 2009 12:33:10 UTC

Give the following players 32 points:

ais523
arthexis
Bucky
Darknight
Darth Cliche
JeffSheets
Kevan
Oranjer
Oze
Qwazukee
Rodlen
Rune Master Xan
Shem
spikebrennan
Wakukee
Wooble
yuri_dragon_17

If any of the players above have claimed points as a result of nominating another player for an election, or are idle when this proposal is enacted, they do not receive any points under this proposal.

There’s nothing in the ruleset to say that each player can only be proposed for the election once - meaning that everyone can do with Excalabur just did. To avoid having the front page spammed into oblivion, let’s just skip to the end.

posted by Josh at 18 Oct 2009 15:19:09 UTC Comments (27)

Comments

Excalabur: Idle

18-10-2009 15:31:33 UTC

Sorry about that.  imperial

Darknight: he/him

18-10-2009 16:14:50 UTC

for

Kevan: he/him

18-10-2009 18:36:57 UTC

against Would be fairer on future players (and would keep the GNDT values more cleanly positive and negative) if we just deducted Excalabur’s points.

redtara: they/themIdle

18-10-2009 18:51:16 UTC

Although what Kevan says it true, to keep this less spammy, I vote for

Bucky: Idle

18-10-2009 18:56:04 UTC

against

Oze: Idle

18-10-2009 19:01:12 UTC

for

Klisz: Idle

18-10-2009 19:01:13 UTC

for  for  for  for  for  /me needs points.

Excalabur: Idle

18-10-2009 19:11:08 UTC

I’d rather only those who could be bothered in some way got points, like people who voted on this prop. 

I probably should have saved the exploit for just before the fix passed, but oh well.

arthexis: he/himIdle

18-10-2009 19:50:13 UTC

for

Josh: he/they

18-10-2009 19:51:04 UTC

While I do somewhat agree with Kevan, we all had an opportunity to gain those points, and future unidlers didn’t; while deduction is somewhat fairer, this way is truer to the rules that we passed. Plus it would be nice to give everyone a bit of a points transfusion; it might mean that some high-point-cost functions can be proposed and used.

arthexis: he/himIdle

18-10-2009 20:01:29 UTC

BTW, I was thinking of doing a proposal to increase everyones points by 20 in order to allow everybody a shot at the costed actions, so even without the “scam” I think this proposal is a good idea.

Rodlen: Idle

18-10-2009 21:19:00 UTC

for

spikebrennan: Idle

18-10-2009 22:06:36 UTC

against

Oranjer: Idle

19-10-2009 03:05:56 UTC

for

Excalabur: Idle

19-10-2009 03:54:51 UTC

Note also that it’s not clear that you can nominate everyone again (except me, since I can’t nominate myself): in conventional usage a person can only be nominated for a post once.

ais523: Custodian

19-10-2009 07:46:22 UTC

for

ais523: Custodian

19-10-2009 20:00:15 UTC

against CoV

redtara: they/themIdle

19-10-2009 20:26:28 UTC

CoV against

Qwazukee: Idle

19-10-2009 20:30:27 UTC

for

ais523: Custodian

19-10-2009 22:19:37 UTC

Incidentally, my CoV is not because I think this is a bad proposal, but to hold up the queue for strategic reasons.

Excalabur: Idle

20-10-2009 11:12:43 UTC

against CoV

Excalabur: Idle

20-10-2009 11:14:05 UTC

Currently 9-6, I think.

Wakukee: Idle

20-10-2009 12:58:10 UTC

against 7-7

Kevan: he/him

20-10-2009 13:46:36 UTC

It is now no longer possible to claim points for nominations anyway.

Josh: he/they

20-10-2009 14:04:10 UTC

This rush of CoVs is confusing. If there’s a good reason for this to fail I will s/k it…?

Bucky: Idle

20-10-2009 16:00:55 UTC

A proposal just passed that set a cap of 30 on the maximum Points you can get in a day.  I have proposed a fix (which among other things would retroactively allow this proposal to ignore the cap), but several of us are trying to delay this passing to simplify accounting.

Josh: he/they

20-10-2009 16:03:29 UTC

Doesn’t that rely on the complicity of michievous admins, like Excalabur, who could now fail this (as it’s a 7-7 tie) and thus profit?